Only if we remove the bodily integrity of the pregnant woman and her free will in gestation from the equation. The rest of us will recognize the difference between refusing to donate one’s body parts to save a life on the one hand and murder on the other.

The courts have ruled that it is a violation of a man’s human rights for the state to compel him to donate any part of his body to save another life, even if he is the only one who can do so and the other person will surely die if he doesn’t. But it was a man in that case, and that case could have set a precedent that could apply to other men. Women’s bodies are seen as more violable.

No doubt. Neonaticide exists for very specific reasons too. And it is very rare in North America. The point is that women who make or allow their babies to die post-birth may be prosecuted for murder. How do we medically and morally define what is infanticide and what is not? Can a woman who used a method to make her baby die in the womb right before giving birth be exempt from prosecution? Can a woman who makes or allows her baby to die post-birth be exempt from prosecution if there is evidence she attempted to get an abortion but facilities were too far away or too expensive for her to visit before she went into labor?

I’m not sure why you bring up the fact that women in Canada haven’t been waiting in long lines to get very late-term abortions. I wasn’t supporting the ridiculous “where abortion is legal, more people will kill their babies after giving birth!” argument. I was noting that distinguishing between infanticide and abortion treads very tricky moral and medical ground, both for lay people, public health professionals, and lawmakers, which Livingston does not allude to.

“The discussion of the divide is incredibly irresponsible in a country where…”

The tone of your response here is unclear to me, but if you are implying that my bringing up these ethical issues was irresponsible, I’d rather not engage with you, because our views on the importance of ethics in the OP’s subject matter are too different, and we’re not going to get anywhere.

Late term abortions exist for very specific reasons (this shouldn’t even have to be stated unless you honestly think that they are being done out of laziness or just for kicks), and except for extreme life changes (death of a spouse, escaping an abusive relationship, diagnose with a disease in the woman or the fetus) they are all specifically exacerbated by the very laws that restrict abortion and a society that stigmatizes it. Because abortion providers are increasingly rare and abortion is not openly discussed, let alone covered by all health plans, women – especially poor women – have to wait longer to raise the money to travel to get the procedure, which becomes increasingly more expensive and restrictive the longer they wait. And so on.

As fo this–
‘irresponsibly convenient – especially in light of major advances that give increasingly more premature babies a shot at regular cognitive and physical development.’

Right so. The discussion of the divide is incredibly irresponsible in a country that won’t mandate the actual, effective means to reduce abortions (comprehensive sex ed and subsidized birth control) or provide adequate support to pregnant women and children.

What about late-term abortions? The fetus is not exactly just a cluster of cells then. The big ethical problem that even a lot of pro-choicers grapple with is when the “cut-off” date for abortion should be. In theory, it is even viably healthy and medically possible for the mother to abort a baby up to the last weeks – possibly even days? – of gestation, although I do not know if this is yet legal anywhere in the world.
I am pro-choice, but I think this easy distinction between “cluster of cells when inside the womb” and “human being once outside the womb” is irresponsibly convenient – especially in light of major advances that give increasingly more premature babies a shot at regular cognitive and physical development. The “cluster of cells” thing just doesn’t hold anymore past a certain amount of weeks of gestation, which many abortion “cut-off date” laws in the world surpass. Let’s not sweep a lot of troubling questions about how to both morally and medically distinguish between infanticide and abortion under the rug.

“In 1915, a doctor named Henry Chapin visited ten foundling hospitals and found that in nine of them, every child died before the age of two.” (page 110)

that’s pretty nuts. these were places people put unwanted babies and NONE of them survived. is that really so much better than abortion? i’d say no. and it seems like babies’ lives were less respected in past generations than they are now.

so yeah, it makes sense that people would kill newborns more often when abortion is not available to them because they are unwanted. if people have access to abortions, fewer unwanted babies are born.